We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and Microsoft Exchange Online Protection based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between the two solutions is that Microsoft Defender for Office 365 lacks protection against threats. Regarding all other categories, users share similar opinions.
"The most valuable feature is protection against malicious links, fishing, and impersonation. You can train people to be aware of these threats, but they're not always careful. When they're using their phones between meetings, they click on a link, and it's game over."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365's most valuable features are safe attachments and safe links."
"I would say that 90% of the spam and phishing attack emails get blocked right off the bat."
"Defender is a SaaS platform, so it offers more flexibility. Managing the permissions is easier. The solution's automated detection and response features are scalable."
"It also gives the vulnerability status according to the versions you have selected. Let's say you have Google Chrome. It mentions the versions it has, and it updates. Within two hours of an update, it is reflected in the dashboard. That's really nice to have."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 helps people to work remotely. It is a secure solution. We don't need to use our company's computers or get VPN connections to the networks. I can control how they share screens and what they send to the devices. It keeps our organizations confidential and sensitive information safe."
"The initial setup is straightforward. You just add the license, click it, and then you can set up the rules. It is quite simple."
"The initial setup was easy."
"You can use the product to create special accounts."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection are the EOP, ATP, safe links, fishing, and antispam."
"We use the solution in all our environments. We use it for remedy tickets and give them updates. It was our main communication point."
"Microsoft EOP's most valuable feature is a shared mailbox."
"The scalability is pretty good; it does what it is supposed to do."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection is the accidental release of information protection capabilities. Additionally, the solution is easy to use."
"The product's most valuable feature is third-party integrations."
"It is scalable."
"We are always looking for others tools to increase automation on tasks. There can be better integration with other solutions, such as PowerPoint and email."
"In one of the reports I can get the exact place where a vulnerable file resides. But for that, I need to explicitly go into the device and check. If they could include that file part in the report, without my having to go to the device itself, that would help."
"There's room for improvement regarding the time frame for retrieving emails."
"We noticed that from time to time, Microsoft's stability does have problems. Sometimes the service goes up and down. Sometimes they change without prior notice."
"The phishing and spam filters could use some improvement."
"We need to be able to whitelist data at the backend."
"They have moved features from one console to another. Things have been moved around in the interface and it takes me time to find where certain features are."
"Microsoft sometimes has downtime, and we'll get several incidents coming in back to back. We have a huge backlog of notifications, many of which may be false positives. However, there might be serious alerts, so we can't risk dismissing all of them at once."
"The security features could be better."
"The licensing can be on the expensive side, especially in the cloud space."
"Not all settings can be configured automatically and most still require manual configuration. However, there is an automation tool available that can be used to input all the configurations either as a script or a tool it would be helpful."
"If a company wants to put in line back-to-back anti-spam solutions, they need to work on that part because Microsoft recommends either you use EOP as a front line or you don't use it."
"It would be helpful for customers if Plan 1 features were included with EOP."
"It wasn't easy or intuitive enough for me to start using it. So, the reason was that the solution changed."
"The solution needs to improve its backup."
"The solution must improve the user experience."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is ranked 1st in Email Security with 41 reviews while Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is ranked 4th in Email Security with 34 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Office 365 writes "Allows for easy reporting of problems, valuable anti-phishing, and anti-malware support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) writes "An effective email security solution that provides DLP, Safe Attachment, and Safe Links". Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is most compared with Proofpoint Email Protection, Mimecast Email Security, Barracuda Email Security Gateway, Cisco Secure Email and Microsoft Defender for Business, whereas Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) is most compared with Proofpoint Email Protection, Cisco Secure Email, Mimecast Email Security, Fortinet FortiMail and Barracuda Email Security Gateway. See our Microsoft Defender for Office 365 vs. Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) report.
See our list of best Email Security vendors.
We monitor all Email Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
